The Technocrats vs The Naturalists

The natural death of one’s physical existence is not a problem but a fact of life. Morality cannot have a solution. The manmade death of the environment, on the other hand, is a problem, and, therefore, must have a solution. The problem with finding the solution or solutions to environmental problems arises from the complicated minds of people whose morals and values differ in so many ways. The technocrats, on the one extreme, insist they can offset the negative environmental consequences of technology with more technology. The naturalists, on the other extreme, scream for the absolute and a complete abandonment of technology and a graceful return to the glorious laws of Mother Earth. Luckily for the world and all its inhabitants, human beings are clever creatures whose knack for negotiation will bring us together in search of a better solution- one which grants us the God-given privileges for just being human while maintaining our human dignity and respect for all the other creations of the other true God, Mother Earth.

Solar Power

While both the technocrats and the naturalists agree that burning fossil fuel for energy causes global warming, they disagree on the solution to such problem. The technocrats assert that strategically placing solar panels withing the environment will deliver much needed relief from climate change while providing clean, renewable energy to satisfy the wants and needs of the people (Solar Energy). The technocrats assert that the ever-growing demand for energy justifies the negative consequences resulting from strategically placed solar farms.  The naturalists disagree. Pointing to the indirect, negative consequences of solar panel farms, the naturalists defend the migrating birds who suffer when they mistake the reflection of large solar panel farms for large bodies of water upon which they land and parish. (Literature review on impacts to avian species from solar energy collection and suggested mitigations, ¶ 4). Thus, the naturalists argue for the complete abandonment of solar farms to protect the rights of migrating birds.

The false dichotomy the extremists put forth should not cloud our minds nor discourage our efforts to find a compromise that makes good use of the sun’s power while preserving the flora and fauna of the environment. While the technocrats are willing to sacrifice some environmental harm for the luxury of plentiful energy, the naturalists would rather have a clean environment at the price of loss of _­ comfort. However, an examination of the differing morals and values between the two extremes might reveal the root cause of such disagreement.

The definition of strategically placed is vague and subject to the different morals and values of members of each extreme. While the technocrats believe that strategically placed means placed in a manner that provides maximum clean power to the people, the naturalists believe that strategically placed means placed in a manner that provides maximum protection to the flora and fauna who share our Earth. A more compromising definition would include concerns from both sides of the extreme. Thus, strategically placed to the comprising mind means placed in a manner that provides both clean power to the people while assuring protection to the flora and fauna.

Smaller solar panels placed on the roofs of homes can provide some clean energy to the inhabitants of those homes without causing problems for waterfowl who search for large bodies of open water on which to land. Although smaller solar panels placed on the roofs of homes, by themselves, may not provide the same energy as fossil fuel sources or even large solar panel farms, a heightened awareness of the beauty and gracefulness of the natural world may motivate the people to adopt more environmentally friendly values and, thus, use less energy in their daily lives. Accordingly, although neither technology nor conservationism, by themselves, will solve the environmental crisis, a compromise between the two extremes will provide our best hope for all, including the homo sapiens and all the flora and fauna of the Earth.

Wind Power

The bickering between the two extremes should not be a reason for discouragement nor an excuse for our failure to benefit from the power of the wind in an environmentally friendly manner. While the technocrats insist that giant wind turbines strategically placed in windy areas will provide society with clean, renewable energy (Wind Energy), the naturalists complain about habitat loss and the horrible slaughter of the birds and bats who instinctively fly into the blades of the turbines to meet their unnatural demise (Wind Turbine Interactions with Birds, Bats, and their Habitats). Whereas both sides of the extreme provide valid points, a more reasonable solution to the environmental problem would be to strategically place smaller, although less efficient, wind turbines in places that do not impact the environment. Such wind turbines could be placed on homes next to the solar panels. However, since smaller wind turbines are less efficient, a reevaluation of the morals and values of the inhabitants of those homes and an adoption of more environmentally friendly lifestyles would be needed to make up for the environmentally friendly, though less efficient source of energy.

Biofuel

Both sides of the extreme agree that too much CO₂ in the atmosphere creates the changes in the Earth’s climate. The extremes, nevertheless, disagree on how to remove the excess CO₂ from the atmosphere_. While the technocrats plan to invent a machine to suck in CO₂ and spew out O₂ (Scientists have built a machine that takes carbon dioxide out of the air and turns it into clean energy), the naturalists advocate planting more trees and loving the trees and forests already growing so freely and happily as brothers and sisters. Those trees and forests, the naturalists claim, perform the same task as the technocrats’ machines, but in a much more natural tradition. Thus, more plants in the environment means less CO₂ in the atmosphere, and since clean, renewable energy can be produced from plants that remove excess CO₂, the perfect compromise would come from supplying the world’s energy needs with biofuel. Like all other alternative forms of energy, however, the environmental impact of biofuel must be considered.

Whereas the net CO₂ from biofuel production is zero, the indirect environmental impact caused from producing biofuel inflames the senses of the naturalists whose love for nature is as passionate as the technocrats’ hunger for more energy. For example, sugarcane, although a highly effective source of biofuel, requires that carbon-rich rain forests be plowed away to make room for more Sugarcane plantations (Biofuels). The flora and fauna that once thrived in the rain forests must parish for the sake of more and more energy to feed societies lust for luxury.  Therefore, like all other forms of alternative energy, biofuels must be used only in limited quantities such as burning wood in a private fireplace or an open campfire.

Conclusion

All problems must have at least one solution, usually many. Otherwise, the issue would not be a problem but a fact of life. The problem with finding a solution or solutions to any problem rests with the differing morals and values of those most affected by the problem. Failing to consider the morals and values of others will often lead to extremism, a problem that will frustrate any further problem-solving efforts. The technocrats, on the one extreme, fail to consider the morals and values of the naturalists who, on the other extreme, fail to consider the morals and values of the technocrats. If the problem of finding the solution lies in the failure to consider the morals and values of the opposition, then the solution to that problem would be to open the mind to those opposing morals and values. Therefore, compromise and negotiation are solutions to the frustration of problem solving.

Works Cited

Mary Finley-Brook,  Biofuels, 2021, blog.richmond.edu/geog370biofuels/environmental-impacts/

Chuck Hathcock, Literature review on impacts to avian species from solar energy collection and suggested mitigations,  2017 www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/03/f61/Hathcock%202018.pdf

Matt Hershberger, Scientists have built a machine that takes carbon dioxide out of the air and turns it into clean energy, 2015, matadornetwork.com/change/scientists-built-machine-takes-carbon-dioxide-air-turns-clean-energy/

National Geographic Society,  Solar Energy, www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/solar-power

The Harvard Gazette, Leah Burrows, The down side to wind power, 2018 news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/

National Geographic Society, Wind Energy, www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/wind-energy/

[United States Government] Wind Turbine Interactions with Birds, Bats, and their Habitats, 2010, www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/birds_and_bats_fact_sheet.pdf